If we maintain the status quo, we’ll have cronies like Jeff Zucker taking the reigns of an established (fake) news organization, pushing propaganda that’s convenient for their world view all while claiming to be objective.
Refer to the CNN exposed / Jeff Zucker tapes if you’re curious to learn about how CNN decides what the narrative is.
>If we maintain the status quo, we’ll have cronies like Jeff Zucker taking the reigns of an established (fake) news organization, pushing propaganda that’s convenient for their world view all while claiming to be objective.
So the obvious answer is to push a news channel that is even more brazenly pushing misinformation?
NTD mostly seems to be airing public hearings, not opinion pieces. NTD, RSBN, OANN and The Independent (UK) for the most part seem to be the only outlets providing full-coverage of these hearings.
There's very little editorialising going on, from what I can see.
Can't speak for Newsmax, I haven't seen many of their videos but they do seem to have more "opinion" anchors.
Are you arguing that the public hearings themselves contain misinformation? What percentage of the testimonies do you think is misinformation?
I flagged and downvoted your comment because it follows a disturbing pattern I have seen in messages from President Trump and his supporters, that the President cannot lose in a legitimate contest. The President has today asserted that he has won the election, "by a lot"; an assertion that can only be true if a significant number of votes against him are illegitimate. Mr. Trump has previously asserted that he won the 2016 election by a historically large margin, that the primaries and even the Emmys were rigged against him.
I'm tired of it.
Your comment is nothing more than an attempt to shut down discourse by denying that any opposed ideas can have any validity. That is a fallacy in an argument. In a democratically elected leader, or his followers, it is a direct attack on the foundations of the country. Please stop.
Barry Richard, an election lawyer who served as a lead attorney for President George W. Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida, criticized the campaign’s efforts. “I wouldn’t call it a strategy,” he said. “There isn’t any legal basis for anything I’ve seen so far.”
Other election law experts have questioned the multipronged attack. Richard Hasen, professor at UC Irvine School of Law and author of “Election Meltdown,” said the lawsuits, even if partially successful, were smaller-scale and didn’t threaten the results. “If they’re not being filed to change the election outcome, what’s the point?” he said.
Is this because you disagree politically or because they’re “beyond the beyond, they’re way worse” or whatever thoughtless, meaningless comment Was typed?
Fox News was conceived as and currently is a propaganda network for the Republican Party. Roger Ailes, a Nixon advisor, saw how the media caused the public opinion to really sour during the Watergate scandal and impeachment and he had the foresight to counteract it. He was the first CEO for Fox News, which was funded by Rupert Murdoch, founder of SkyNews in Australia, another network with not the best reputation.
These should be avoided. Ranking articles? How about visiting the sources and reading what they have to say instead of taking peoples word for it.
I always call bs when left leaning sources, who are just as opinionated as the right leaning sources, are closer to “neutral” than the right leaning sources are to neutral. It paints a picture that right leaning sources are “closer to the extremes” when I believe the opposite is true.
Hi there - answers below:
1. We have a list of about 1000 news sources that we pulled together from lists of popular news sites and Twitter.
2. We use a 5-point political spectrum: Right, moderate-right, Center, moderate-left, Left.
Political leaning data is from Media Bias Fact Check and AllSides. The methodology of these sites seems reasonable and they've been used in research by The Economist to study bias on Google search results so we consider that to be generally acceptable.
2A: Breitbart is Right-leaning.
2B: We don't have an "objective" tag. Most news sites consider themselves objective but the biases of the authors and news outlets - conscious or otherwise - suggest every story needs to be corroborated across a few sources.
The bias of an outlet doesn't affect its rating from The Factual. So the bias information is mainly for context to the reader and the fine gradation of Left vs. Moderate-Left may not be as critical.
I agree with what John said and I have responded to his comment. These kind of terms should definitely be highlighted. I apologize that we adapted this term in our User Agreement and it was a mistake. I will make sure we fix it. I would also like to assure that we will be careful in future regarding these kind of terms so we fulfill the mission of empowering open-hardware truly.
The key point here is that those terms apply to both private and public repositories. So if you use this service, they can distribute your private designs if they so choose.
Copyright isn't an issue for hardware designs because copyright does not cover functional devices. When the PC boards of clones of your product start coming out of China, InventHub is in the clear with those terms. To be taken seriously, InventHub has to take on the obligation of protecting your trade secrets.
Thank you for highlighting this. We are working to improve the language of the terms to make sure we help protect the the designs/trade secrets.
Just to put it out as a company this is how we see the obligation to protect trade secrets.
For public projects: We are giving user leverage to share at their own discretion along with a license made by them, industry standards or the new licenses we are coming up with.
For private projects: No designs will be listed publicly, shared with anyone, they exist in complete privacy to the user who created the repository. We do not and will not list them, rank them, read them or share them in any way.
To summarize if a user makes the project public, that means user is doing that on his own will and we will fulfill the obligation by enabling them with proper licensing tools + providing better licenses which InventHub is working on. For private projects everything will be safe and secret with the project owner and doesn't need protection more than platform infrastructure security which we take very seriously considering a lot of IP's will be hosted on our platform.
But you don't commit to that contractually. "How you see it as a company" is a worthless promise.
I don't think these people get being a B2B company at all. They think they can get away with "we can do anything" consumer type terms. If you consider dealing with this company for non-toy projects, you need to have a lawyer review the contract. That's all I'm going to say.
(My public designs are on GitHub. Works fine. You don't really need these people for open source work.)
Thanks Animats. Being part of the industry I understand the importance of these policies and how much it can hurt a developer. We are working hard to improve the terms and bring more clarity in them. I would love to chat with you to get your suggestions/feedback.
Currently we are closely following GitHub's terms(adapted under CC license).
"We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. This includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video."[0]
Also, we will definitely commit to what I said we believe as company in our terms of service. As I have said we are in process to update them with more clarity.
Is it possible it is the driest year on record for reasons outside of human impact?
Do we understand weather patterns enough to be confident in the conclusions?
Could the driest year on record be a random event?
This author seems to be reaching a conclusion first, then finding data to support that conclusion. Any time there is a superlative, we can conveniently apply the climate change label to it.
How about some humility?
I try to take these in good faith, but the author’s bio descriptions and stated employment at left leaning organizations are also reasons I approach this with skepticism.
It depends...
When asked by regulators, 5% market share.
When asked by customers, 35% market share.
Joking aside, Peter Thiel has great commentary on how companies avoid the monopoly label by claiming to be part of a larger community. A classic example is that Google search has at least 70%+ market share. However, when asked by regulators, they’re a “tech company” with many competitors and have a significantly lower market share.
This is promoting victim culture. Many red flags and many GoFundMe links.
If you can’t afford a lifestyle, move. If you can’t afford the lifestyle, but continue to live there, don’t create a gofundme and craft a sob story highlighting your negligence.
On a positive note, you can get a job, graduate high school, and not have kids out of wedlock (dogs are not cheap either). You have all 3 of those going for you. You are tougher than you think.
You should reject all of those GoFundMe dollars or have a plan to repay people who donated.
If we maintain the status quo, we’ll have cronies like Jeff Zucker taking the reigns of an established (fake) news organization, pushing propaganda that’s convenient for their world view all while claiming to be objective.
Refer to the CNN exposed / Jeff Zucker tapes if you’re curious to learn about how CNN decides what the narrative is.